Also FYI: Those Milesian numerals (i.e. α',β',γ',... [this is them in their Greek modern written form]) are still used "liturgically" in the Greek and Coptic Orthodox Churches (with native Coptic letters used instead of some of the obsolete Greek letters in the later context), (as well as their using the (so-called) Arabic numerals (i.e. 0,1,2,3,...) or the (actual) Arabic numerals (i.e. ٠,١,٢,٣,...) along side them in other contexts in those Churches in general respectively).

In case you are wondering if they are really "Greek" numerals as Wiki calls them - I mean spoken out in Greek - they are pronounced in Greek (i.e. ἕν,δὐο,τρἰα,... or as ordinals [πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρῖτον, ...] as required by grammatical context) in Greek language contexts and as Coptic (i.e. ouai, esnav, šomt, ... [in the 19th century reformed liturgical pronunciation], or as ordinals [šorp for "first" then the others constructed with a prefixed "mah-"] as the context requires), in the same way that we are used to in modern language that pronounce the decimal position numerals in their own words not foreign ones.

This is again... great. Thank you so much for teaching me everything. Wouldn't have gotten this far without your help.

I will attach a interpretation of what you have described here. It looks pretty neat (altough font is not perfect).

I come from a lutheran tradition, and I think that I will try to act in the spirit of Martin Luther at least a little, by "translating" the numbers to the so-called Arabic numbers which more people understand. If I would be really lutheran I would probably write the texts in swedish, but I guess theology is very much about dialectics for me, between going back to the roots, and being here and now at the same time. Where the text, when being translated into swedish can lose a bit (or a large bit) of it's original touch. The numbers on the other hand, feels like the right thing to "translate", since I feel both the chapter divisions and the verse divisions which I have put in the work in progress, are modern additions, so I feel if I want to make something easy to understand, that should be it. Altough I get the point of being consistent.

Anyway I still have some time to give it a thought. The tattoo is being done 27 of August, altough I doubt it will be done in one "sit" (probably two).

I'm sorry, I was expecting you not to use them, so I've probably misled you (a little) by quoting them in that (modern) post-Byzantine form using a keraia to the right of the number.

To understand numerals as shorthand ways of writing numbers, we could start with the abbreviations for Jesus' name and the like. The ΙC that has the line over it is an abbreviation in writing for ΙΗCΟΥC (Ἰησοῦς - Jesus). At the time of writing Greek that you are more-or-less copying, writing technology (and hence writing conventions) didn't allow for a whole lot of small marks over and around the texts. In those terms it was ΙΗCΟΥC abbreviated (not contracted) to ΙC [with the line over it]. If it were written in modern terms, it would be Ἰ'ς, where the apostrophe is like the apostrophe in gov't ("government") - marking that even though the word is written "govt", it is not read like that (unlike don't, where the apostrophe is a contraction). In other words, nobody read /is/ for ΙC (with a supralinear stroke).

The numerals, in like manner, (in the current convention) written α',β',γ', etc. are not to be read as /a/, /b/, /g/, etc., nor as "alpha", "beta", "gamma", etc.. They are a shorthand way of writing what they represent, viz. ἕν,δὐο,τρἰα,... or πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρῖτον, ... in whatever number-case forms are needed.

My point is that, so far as I know, at the time when people wrote in hands that your hand resemble, the milesian numerals were written in the same style of characters as the text was written in, with supralinear strokes. That is to say; 8:12 - Η.ΙΒ, 2:10 - Β.Ι, 22:5 - ΚΒ.Ε, but with supralinear strokes rather than underlining. You can see an example of it in the number of the beast.

[I say, "so far as I know", because I'm not sure when the convention changed, but (much) earlier, no line was written over the numerals, and they were deduced (by savvy readers) to be numerals from context. I'm not sure if it was a universal change or still just a tendency towards clarity at that time.]

Stephen Hughes wrote:Perhaps I've misled you by quoting the numbers in that form.Modern day usage of Milesian numerals.

I realise you are not planning to use them, but ...

FYI, the Milesian numerals for the verses you are quoting are; 8:12 - η'.ιβ', 2:10 - β'.ι', 2:25 - κβ'.ε'.
I'm sorry, I was expecting you not to use them, so I've probably misled you (a little) by quoting them in that (modern) post-Byzantine form using a keraia to the right of the number.

To understand numerals as shorthand ways of writing numbers, we could start with the abbreviations for Jesus' name and the like. The ΙC that has the line over it is an abbreviation in writing for ΙΗCΟΥC (Ἰησοῦς - Jesus). At the time of writing Greek that you are more-or-less copying, writing technology (and hence writing conventions) didn't allow for a whole lot of small marks over and around the texts. In those terms it was ΙΗCΟΥC abbreviated (not contracted) to ΙC [with the line over it]. If it were written in modern terms, it would be Ἰ'ς, where the apostrophe is like the apostrophe in gov't ("government") - marking that even though the word is written "govt", it is not read like that (unlike don't, where the apostrophe is a contraction). In other words, nobody read /is/ for ΙC (with a supralinear stroke).

This was very helpful, and I also understand more about the supralinear strokes from this. This is great. Makes sense really, very good examples. Thank you.

Stephen Hughes wrote:The numerals, in like manner, (in the current convention) written α',β',γ', etc. are not to be read as /a/, /b/, /g/, etc., nor as "alpha", "beta", "gamma", etc.. They are a shorthand way of writing what they represent, viz. ἕν,δὐο,τρἰα,... or πρῶτον, δεύτερον, τρῖτον, ... in whatever number-case forms are needed.

My point is that, so far as I know, at the time when people wrote in hands that your hand resemble, the milesian numerals were written in the same style of characters as the text was written in, with supralinear strokes. That is to say; 8:12 - Η.ΙΒ, 2:10 - Β.Ι, 22:5 - ΚΒ.Ε, but with supralinear strokes rather than underlining. You can see an example of it in the number of the beast.

[I say, "so far as I know", because I'm not sure when the convention changed, but (much) earlier, no line was written over the numerals, and they were deduced (by savvy readers) to be numerals from context. I'm not sure if it was a universal change or still just a tendency towards clarity at that time.]

This was very helpful as well. So for a reader of the koine greek language, is it obvious that it's abbrevations for greek numerals then? In for example Nestle Aland, when for example number of the beast is written, they write the full numbers names like you did with "ἕν,δὐο,τρἰα"?

I put together another work in progress. I am starting to consider using Milesian numerals, or leave an empty space there and decide about the numbers later. Does it look right?

So for a reader of the koine greek language, is (was? SGH) it obvious that it's abbrevations for greek numerals then?

With a supralinear-stroke, yes. Without, most probably or they'd need to go back and read again to make sense of it.

In for example Nestle Aland, when for example number of the beast is written, they write the full numbers names like you did with "ἕν,δὐο,τρἰα"?

I can't answer the question you are asking, but I suggsest that you could look at

I put together another work in progress. I am starting to consider using Milesian numerals, or leave an empty space there and decide about the numbers later. Does it look right?

I assume you are asking for a subjective opinion about beauty now, not an objective one about accuracy. I think the supralinear strokes strokes over ΚC and ΘC in the third text are too short, and the one over the numeral Ι (10) below the second text is too long and off-centre.

RandallButh wrote:Back in the first century alot of people would write ιωανου or ιωανης.
Westcott and Hort used to spell that way, before Nestle thought to change it.

I would like to repeat Randall's thoughts and add that in Codex Sinaiticus, which you started working from, uses the spelling with one nu, but most others that Alan B. displays have a double nu.

Stephen Hughes wrote:So for a reader of the koine greek language, is (was? SGH) it obvious that it's abbrevations for greek numerals then?
With a supralinear-stroke, yes. Without, most probably or they'd need to go back and read again to make sense of it.

Haha. All right. Well then I don't see much of a problem using these numerals. In my mind I had for some reason started to believe that greek numerals were something that was a bit off from koine language. Wrongfully, of course. I will use these instead of the arabic numerals.

Stephen Hughes wrote:
I assume you are asking for a subjective opinion about beauty now, not an objective one about accuracy. I think the supralinear strokes strokes over ΚC and ΘC in the third text are too short, and the one over the numeral Ι (10) below the second text is too long and off-centre.

Well, yes I trust in your subjective opinion about beauty, since I think the wip have become a lot more beautiful since I began. I have tried to "correct" the above. Also "rewrote" some of the numerals letters.

RandallButh wrote:Back in the first century alot of people would write ιωανου or ιωανης.
Westcott and Hort used to spell that way, before Nestle thought to change it.

Stephen Hughes wrote:I would like to repeat Randall's thoughts and add that in Codex Sinaiticus, which you started working from, uses the spelling with one nu, but most others that Alan B. displays have a double nu.

All right. Thanks. I'll go with the double then! Seems a great page btw.

So what is your subjective opinion of the WIP now? How does the stroke above "IC" look (and the others I have corrected)?

I think it would look better if you were to put a "tail" at the beginning of the extended "infinity" at the very end of the third passage, perhaps mirror imaged from the far end of it.

The Α (with a supralinear stroke) meaning πρώτη "first (epistle)" at the bottom of the second text looks too significant being out on its own. Perhaps it could be put on the same line as either John's name or the numerals. If you are adding the numerals later, perhaps on the line above with the name of the authour is better.

At some point in the history of Milesian numerals, a sublinear stroke became significant too, to indicate numbers over 1,000. You have a lot of line around the text that could be taken as sublinear strokes, perhaps you could stylise them a bit to differentiate them from what is significant. I'm not sure if double strokes were ever significant. [I shouldn't be the one giving you advice on these things; I have always been fascinated with maths, but, (being dim-witted and mentally dull), I only managed 8% in my grade 12 (leaving high school) maths exam. ]

pmander wrote:

Stephen Hughes wrote:I would like to repeat Randall's thoughts and add that in Codex Sinaiticus, which you started working from, uses the spelling with one nu, but most others that Alan B. displays have a double nu.

All right. Thanks. I'll go with the double then! Seems a great page btw.

I was repeating Randall's comments to point out your anomaly, not to discredit what he was saying.

In any case...You've moved on from robotically "copying" the manuscript in which that is the case now though, and on to creating your own "original" work of body art. That gives you scope for accepting the majority spelling variant.

pmander wrote:How does the stroke above "IC" look (and the others I have corrected)?

I suggest you let them go the full length of both letters, as you have done so for the numerals.

BTW:
Can you read it out yet? Could you speak it out for someone if they asked you? I guess you must be very familiar with it by now.

Stephen Hughes wrote:I think it would look better if you were to put a "tail" at the beginning of the extended "infinity" at the very end of the third passage, perhaps mirror imaged from the far end of it.

The Α (with a supralinear stroke) meaning πρώτη "first (epistle)" at the bottom of the second text looks too significant being out on its own. Perhaps it could be put on the same line as either John's name or the numerals. If you are adding the numerals later, perhaps on the line above with the name of the authour is better.

At some point in the history of Milesian numerals, a sublinear stroke became significant too, to indicate numbers over 1,000. You have a lot of line around the text that could be taken as sublinear strokes, perhaps you could stylise them a bit to differentiate them from what is significant. I'm not sure if double strokes were ever significant. [I shouldn't be the one giving you advice on these things; I have always been fascinated with maths, but, (being dim-witted and mentally dull), I only managed 8% in my grade 12 (leaving high school) maths exam. ]

Great stuff. This was some great subjective nitpicking, Stephen.

Infinity I adjusted.

Well, personally I don't like maths, so it's good that someone who is fascinated by it has a look at the numbers part. I've styylised the styling-strokes a bit differently.

The only thing which I didn't do very much about was the "A", I moved it closer to the ιωαvνου with the "styling-strokes" being "synced" to the ιωαvνου "styling-strokes", altough I wanted the numbers under, as it becomes consistent with the other numbers and structure around the book names.

Stephen Hughes wrote:I was repeating Randall's comments to point out your anomaly, not to discredit what he was saying.

In any case...You've moved on from robotically "copying" the manuscript in which that is the case now though, and on to creating your own "original" work of body art. That gives you scope for accepting the majority spelling variant.

I see, well it was good practical info which helped me make a decision, so good that you pointed that out.

I'd like to think so as well. Which only feels right, coming to such things as body art.

pmander wrote:How does the stroke above "IC" look (and the others I have corrected)?

Stephen Hughes wrote:
I suggest you let them go the full length of both letters, as you have done so for the numerals.

Adjusted that as well.

Stephen Hughes wrote:BTW:
Can you read it out yet? Could you speak it out for someone if they asked you? I guess you must be very familiar with it by now.

I will start my studies on monday, hopefully I can read it out soon enough. Right now, no. Altough I feel a lot more familiar with the letters and how they look. Which is always something!

Any thoughts or opinions on the last attachment? Personally I like it a lot.

I especially like that it is handwritten. There is enough variation in the letters for it to look like hand writing. I feel that there is a strength and a personal witness to the faith - an act of personal devotion - in handwriting, that cutting and pasting with the brain half in neutral can never fully achieve.

I especially like that it is handwritten. There is enough variation in the letters for it to look like hand writing. I feel that there is a strength and a personal witness to the faith - an act of personal devotion - in handwriting, that cutting and pasting with the brain half in neutral can never fully achieve.

I agree with you. Copy-pasting in Word with a specialized font just isn't the same. This got a lot better than I dared to hope for in the beginning. So once again, thank you Stephen!

I will probably upload the results when it is on place on my back if the moderators does not disapprove. (Would say done in about two months) Might not look as "perfect" (probably most computer screens are more flat than my lower back) as on that .gif , but I would say then (hopefully) there will be a different kind of beauty. And whatever the results I have a good feeling about carrying these verses on my back as well as in my heart, where they already are.